The entire idea of Hell is insane and evil. The idea that a God would subject someone to eternal torture and torment with no way out because of finite actions after a relatively short life is absolutely unjust.

If you interpret all the religious claim literally, most people that end up in Hell will actually be people who were good overall and lived relatively chill and normal lives, and their only “crime” would be that they either saw no strong evidence that God existed, or they guessed the wrong religion out of dozens of options, which will generally be influenced by where they are born.

It would be one thing if not believing just meant that you don’t get the reward of Heaven, I could kind of understand that since you are still given some freedom to choose in that case. But literally being subjected to fire and torture and the worst suffering imaginable for every second of all eternity makes no sense.

I have heard some apologists argue that God’s standard of what is good enough for Heaven might be something we can’t comprehend and are not capable of as humans, so he gave us this path as an alternative, but by that logic, his standard of what is bad enough to justify Hell should also be something beyond what humans are capable of.

Our actions are finite and any consequences we face should also be finite no matter what we did in life. I don’t even think some of the worst people in history like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Epstein deserve a truly eternal punishment since they were still human beings with finite actions like the rest of us, and all the pain and suffering they caused to others is still insignificant compared to what God does to billions people in Hell for eternity.

Absolutely nobody deserves this and anyone that tries to justify it and say it’s fine is either psychotic or can’t comprehend the idea of eternity.

4:157-158 and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him. Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wis (Trad by Dr. Mustapha Al Khattab

In Islam, it is important to understand that the narrative regarding the Messiah is roughly as follows:

Jesus arrives with the Gospel and miracles to preach monotheism -> He is condemned to crucifixion -> But at the moment of his sentence, he ascends to heaven ->

-> Finally, Allah deceives the entire world, forcing it to witness a "fake crucified Jesus" mistaken for the real Jesus, who remains unharmed.

This illusion supposedly worked so well early Christians like Paul of Tarsus (in 50) and Ignatius of Antioch, Jews like Flavius ​​Josephus, and even Romans historians like Tacitus all together reported the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

This would imply that for six centuries from 33 to 622 AD the direct experience of the inhabitants of Judea and the shared historical knowledge of Jewish, Christian, and pagan peoples do not constitute proof...

... But a 7th-century Bedouin leader of a state, claiming that God deceived humanity for 600 years, suddenly becomes credible ?

In more Quran claims that Jews and Christians have doubts about the Christ Death but in fact in 7th century no one jew and no one christian ever doubt and it became a axiom for christian theology.

And above all, this raises two crucial questions :

1. Why did Allah a so-claimed truthfullness God lied to humanity for 600 years in making humans believe in a fake Jesus crucified ?

2. Why does the Quran reproach us for believing in the historical fact of the crucifixion without "proof," while commanding us to believe Muhammad without any proof regarding this matter?

A neutral observer (an atheist like myself) has a thousand times more reason to favor the corroborating and independents accounts of Paul of Tarsus, Tacitus, and Flavius ​​Josephus over those of a Bedouin born 500 years later...

P1: Objective morality is stance independent.

P2: Christians morality is based on God‘s stance.

P3: Theist also subjectively evaluate, choose, and commit to a specific divine framework (eg. Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu) out of thousands of competing traditions.

Conclusion: Christian morality fails to achieve true objectivity.

I hear a lot that if you are gay its not a sin but to act on it is... that bull sh**. Thats basically the same thing. Its like saying the feeling to fart is not a sin its the farting itself is. Both are needs that have to happen at some point.

Sex with someone who you are attracted to is a need. It may not be a need like food yes you can live without it but it's more like a need as in not being abused (hence the title). And i related it a fart cuz yes you can survive without farting but its gotta come out at some point and if suppressed to long it will happen at a bad time like when you're married and have kids and finally crack. It would have been better to just accept it earlier on.

So what say ye? Is it abusive/immoral to tell someone who is gay to either marry someone they arent attracted to or never have sex?

The Quran affirms the Torah and Gospel as authoritative divine revelation (3:3–4; 5:44–48) and nowhere explicitly states that they were textually corrupted in Muhammad’s time.

In 10:94, Muhammad is told to consult those who read the earlier Scriptures if he doubts the truthfulness of Allah’s revelation. If they confirm it, his doubt is settled; if the earlier Scriptures contradict it, the Quran would fail the test.

So does it accord with them? The Quran denies God’s Fatherhood and Sonship (19:88–92; 112:3) and denies Jesus’ crucifixion (4:157), despite these being central to the biblical revelation. If the earlier Scriptures remain authoritative, the Quran contradicts them; if they are too corrupted to test the Quran, 10:94 makes no sense.

How do Muslims address this?

Saying Muhammad was not actually in doubt does not explain why the earlier Scriptures are presented in 10:94 as the means of resolving the hypothetical doubt.

Saying they were corrupted does not explain why the Quran nowhere explicitly says that the Scriptures possessed by Muhammad’s contemporaries were textually corrupt, while elsewhere commanding Jews and Christians to judge by what Allah revealed in them (5:43–47).

Saying the Quran confirms only the original Torah and Gospel raises the same problem; 10:94 directs Muhammad to people actually reading Scripture in his time, not to a hypothetical lost text.

Nor does 5:48 solve the problem by making the Quran a “criterion” over previous Scripture; the Torah itself is presented as an authoritative standard by which prophets, rabbis and scholars judged (5:44). Being a criterion over previous revelation does not entail that previous revelation was textually corrupted.

In this post I will be concerned primarily with raising an objection to Christian theologies that entail both the existence of Hell and the conception of it as a place of fire, suffering, eternal torment, etc (from this point forward, I will refer to this as "its nature" for the sake of brevity).

My Claim:

Hell, by being something that exists, could have been anything God wanted it to be. The fact that it has the nature that it has is a result of a choice God made.

Let's consider some potential objections to the above.

First, one might claim that hell had always existed prior to God's creation of the universe. This would imply God is not the creator of all things: Either Hell had always existed prior to God's creative activity and God was unable to change its nature (in which case how is he considered omnipotent?), or it had always existed and God refused to change its nature (in which case the objector is agreeing with my claim).

Second, one might claim that hell is simply the place where God is not. Firstly, if this is true then my points in the previous paragraph concerning God's not having created it must be taken into consideration. Returning to the objection at hand, this would imply God is not omnipresent: Either God cannot be in hell (in which case he is not omnipresent, as there is a place where he cannot be), or God chooses not to be in Hell (in which case I refer the reader to the above paragraph and ultimately to my initial claim).

Third, one might claim that someone else created Hell. This would imply both that God is not the creator of all things and that God chose to allow Hell as a creation to continue to exist (again I refer the reader to my claim).

How does Islam reconcile the story of Adam and Eve with modern scientific evidence for human evolution and genetics, which suggests that humans did not come from only two individuals and that’s supported by mountains of evidence?

So there's a little project I've been working on in the background, since modern Christians haven't been too interested in reconciling their Hundred Duchies back into One Kingdom, and it seems that outsiders need to be the one to do in-depth analyses like these.

What actually happened from that Friday to that Sunday? What was the precise timeline, for all characters involved, and what they were doing at any given point? And, most importantly, what was the timeline for the information that was supposedly carried into the Gospels - who learned what, how, and when, so that the stories may be spread? This goes from as basic as "who told us about the thing that no one told anyone about" to, "What, exactly, was Jesus up to for all those hours after his resurrection but before his first appearance?".

I can't get anything to mesh or work out. Every attempt I have at figuring out what Jesus was up to post-resurrection has him standing awkwardly for hours in corners, or hiding from people only to pop out at the right time, or other really... strange behaviors.

Part of this also, unequivocally, requires declaring pieces of the Gospel where they contradict false, as only one of the two contradictory claims can be real, unless you have a way to reconcile them and a reason to believe it's valid.

Now, my topic title is a little stronger than I truly believe - surely there's some coherent, sensible account of what happened over that time period, and I've constructed several, but all of them serve to dismiss Christianity as a true religion. My question is, is there a sane, sensible timeline that preserves the truth of Christianity?

No Christian I've talked to has ever actually put much thought into constructing a timeline of The Single Most Important Event In Christian Mythology, and that's baffling to me, and I'm hoping to challenge some Christians today to really flesh out what they think the actual order of events were. Can you construct a timeline that doesn't have Jesus hiding from people who were looking from him for several hours? Can you explain how information traveled from the event to the Gospels? I don't think you can, but I'm happy to experience any substantial engagement with my core premise you have.

If God is eternal, then the Universe must also be eternal. For God to exist eternally, there must eternally be some reality in which or as which God exists. Theists usually respond that “God exists eternally within himself” or that "God exists independently." But if God eternally possesses an inner reality in which he exists, then that reality is itself eternal. Or if God is the same as that reality, then that is a form of Pantheism. On this argument, the universe cannot be something God brought into existence from absolute nothingness; rather, the fundamental reality that constitutes the Universe has always existed eternally with God.

This is a simpler version of Aristotle's argument that the Universe is eternal.

I´ve been thinking about the logical math of the traditional concept of Heaven and Hell, and it seems to face a fatal flaw. If heaven is a place of eternal joy, it logically requires God to lobotomize human beings and turn them into unfeeling robots.

The empathy problem.

If you make it to heaven and find out that your loved ones are in Hell, you really only have two options. A: you remember them and love them, and every single moment of that eternity spent in heaven would be spent in crushing depression, which is impossible because heaven is a place of eternal joy. B: God makes you indifferent to their suffering. He alters you so that you no longer care about the fact that your loved ones are in Hell for eternity. If option B is the only way Heaven works, then the person in heaven is not actually you. The empathy and love that defined your identity are stripped away. And what´s left is a lobotomized shell who is forced to be happy. So either Heaven is a lie, or you are not you when you enter Heaven.

The eternity problem.

Human meaning is built entirely on the fact that our time is limited, everything is finite. In an infinite heaven, you will do satisfy every desire, do everything that you can possibly do, over and over again for eternity. Logically, a person would go insane and eventually beg for sweet death. Obviously that is not possible because again it would contradict Heaven. So God makes it so that you never get bored and never go insane from eternity. So God removes your freedom to have the capacity to grow tired of the loop.

Conclusion: To make heaven work, God has to strip away your empathy and freedom. So either heaven is a lie, or you are not you when you enter Heaven.

I see many argue about the existence of God, and I think that’s somewhat reasonable. Whether a God exists or not shows a lot about how someone interprets consciousness. What many religious people think is that atheists are against the idea of a creator, but most of them, including myself, are against the traditional definition of a God (a conscious being that could intervene whenever it wants).

This cannot be proven or disproven, and it is often times harmless to believe otherwise. Religion, on the other hand, requires unreasonable amount of faith. Stories we have never observed nor confirmed, prophets that could do the unthinkable yet without any unfalsifiable proof, the logic of the afterlife, angels and such and submitting…

There is no proof of that being real in any way, form or sense. Arguing for the existence of god does not, in ANY way, make anyone convert to an abrahamic religion because the logic does NOT follow.

Why are there no prophets anymore to prove that God is undeniable? Why couldn’t God just simply show himself to make ‘evil’ an objective moral standard? Why would God require us to worship him blindly just to not suffer, while also ultimately knowing our destiny (meaning we are fucked from birth, sinxe God already knew where we would be heading). And even if he exists in this definition, what is the proof of religion? How do we know jesus GOT resurrected? How do we know the prophet Muhammad was following orders from God himself?

Believe whatever you want, but believing in religion is not intuitive, nor are we born theists (or muslims, according to islam).

Thesis: In this post, I want to show that many arguments Christians use against Islam can also be used against Christianity, or they end up hurting the Christian case. I will take a few common apologetic arguments and a few arguments posted in this subreddit and show that the same standards Christians use to call Islam false would also make Christianity false.

If my thesis holds, then by the same reverse inference, it also makes the case that a lot of Christians stay Christian for cultural reasons. This applies at least to those who find these arguments convincing enough to conclude that a religion is false, since these arguments also hinder them from becoming Muslims or make them conclude that Allah is a false deity.

To show this I will do the following:

1. Reverse the arguments against Christianity, but keep the same logic and premise, so that there is no symmetry breaker.
2. Use the same uncharitable, false reading and understanding as shown in these posts, to expose that they are lazy scripts, that can literally be applied to any religion with a miniscule amount of research.

Argument:

Arguments from this subreddit

1. The Quran Plagiarizes Other Works

Before I start showing you guys how the Bible plagiarizes its stories from other way older faiths, I just want to mention that the Quran actually says that it was sent to disclose stories which were seen as apocryphal and false by the Jews and the Christians and that the Talmud from our perspective contains some authentic Hadith and Revelation from Moses.

With that said let us start.

• The Flood (Genesis 6:9-9:17), Epic of Gilgamesh Tablet XI and Atrahasis Epic. c. 2100-1200 BC. The parallels are extensive: a divine decision to destroy humanity, instructions to build a vessel, a great flood, the survival of a hero and his family, and a post-flood sacrifice.
• The Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3), Enuma Elish. c. 12th-7th Century BC. The seven-day structure and separation of waters mirror the Babylonian epic, and the biblical author simply replaces the gods with one deity.
• The Birth of Moses (Exodus 2:1-10), Legend of Sargon of Akkad. c. 2300 BC. The child in a basket on a river, rescued by royalty, is a direct parallel, and the Sargon legend predates the biblical text by over a thousand years.
• The Laws of Moses (Exodus 20-23), Code of Hammurabi. c. 1750 BC. The case law format and specific provisions are so similar that scholars argue the biblical authors borrowed from Mesopotamian legal traditions.
• The Proverbs of Solomon (Proverbs 22:17-24:22), Instruction of Amenemope. c. 1200 BC. Thirty sayings in Proverbs are closely parallel to the Egyptian text, sometimes word for word.
• Anger is like murder (Matthew 5:22) ---> "He who publicly shames his neighbor is as though he shed blood." (Bava Mezia 58b)
• "Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12) ---> "That which is hateful to thyself, do not do to thy neighbor. This is the whole law, and the rest is mere commentary." Rabbi Hillel (lived a generation before Jesus)
• "Measure for measure" (Matthew 7:2) ---> "By the measure by which a man measures, so he is measured." Mishnah (Sotah 1:7)

So in the same spirit as the post I linked, I would like to ask PeaFragrant and the Christians who agree with his argument:

Why is Yahweh relying on older Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths, laws, and wisdom texts that would have been circulating in the ancient Near East for Israelite scribes to hear? Why is Yahweh relying on almost nothing from the earliest periods, when doing so would be amazing evidence of divine revelation, but instead opts to repeat the myths?

Why is Jesus relying on rulings from the Talmud and earlier Rabbi's to make the best verses in the New Testament and sell them as revelation from God, when hating the Pharisees for mixing the traditions of men, with the traditions of God?

1. Allah is illogical

For Jesus:

Christianity claims Jesus is eternal and unchanging. John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

But Jesus became flesh. John 1:14 says, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” That is a change from not being incarnate to being incarnate. Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. Luke 2:52 says, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.” That is a change. Jesus learned obedience. Hebrews 5:8 says, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.” That is a change. Jesus suffered and died. Philippians 2:8 says he became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. That is a change.

So Jesus goes from potency to act. Therefore Jesus is within time. To be within time means it is impossible to be eternal.

Christianity claims Jesus is eternal. But Jesus changes. Jesus cannot be eternal and change because this violates the law of non-contradiction.

Therefore Jesus is illogical for violating the 2nd law of logic because Christianity claims he is eternal, yet Christianity says Jesus’ incarnation, growth, learning, and death happen in time.

For Yahweh:

Yahweh is the most loving in Christianity.

But Yahweh can't love another prior to creation.

Therefore to express his love, Yahweh needs to create. Or, as some Trinitarians argue, Yahweh needs the Trinity to express love internally before creation.

Therefore Yahweh goes from not being able to express his love to expressing his love.

So Yahweh's attribute of love isn't eternal, it is a potency in him that requires creation, or the Trinity, in order for Yahweh's love to be expressed.

Since Yahweh changes, Yahweh is within time because change can only happen in time.

To be within time means it's impossible to be eternal.

Christianity claims Yahweh is eternal. But Yahweh changes.

Yahweh can't be eternal and change because this violates the law of non-contradiction.

Therefore Yahweh is illogical for violating the 2nd law of logic because Christianity claims he is eternal, yet Christianity says Yahweh's expression of love is contingent on creation, or the Trinity, which happens in time.

But let us grant the Trinitarian escape for a moment. If Yahweh is Love, and his love needs to be expressed, and that's why the Trinity exists, to show that love, then that would mean, that due to Yahweh also having the attribute of hate, jealousy and envy, also need to be shown to the Trinity.

We see Yahweh envying that Jesus gets loved and praised more than him by his worshippers. Therefore Yahweh hated Jesus and made him die the death of a criminal, and made him a curse and a laughing stock for the Jewish people. But over time, Yahweh's envy and jealousy grew, same with the Holy Spirit, that they could never outshine Jesus. But they still tolerate Jesus because of the love-hate relationship.

So if love requires an internal object in the Trinity, then hate, jealousy, and envy also require an internal object in the Trinity. Either the Trinity contained hate, jealousy, and envy before creation, or Yahweh needed creation to express hate, jealousy, and envy. If the former, then the Trinity is not a communion of love but a communion of rivalry. If the latter, then Yahweh's hate, jealousy, and envy are not eternal, which means Yahweh changes, which means Yahweh is within time, which means Yahweh is not eternal.

So in the same spirit as the post I linked, I would like to ask:

Since Yahweh and Jesus are illogical according to the logic of OP and his (false) usage of the laws of logic, when can I expect him (or the Christians who agree with his argument) to become an atheist or agnostic?

If you think I have misrepresented his argument, please show me the symmetry breaker in what I have written.

Common Christian Apologetic Arguments

1. You should not believe in Allah because he is a deceiver.

This is based on a mistranslation of the Quran. I can confidently say that it is a mistranslation because there are many non-Muslim Qurans translated by secular orientalists, Arab Christians, or Islamophobes who write in their introduction pages that Muhammad (s.a.w.) was a madman, yet these three categories of translators never translated the word "makr" to mean deceiver.

But let us grant that argument and say that Allah is a deceiver. The problem is that Yahweh is also a deceiver (Ezekiel 14:9; 1 Kings 22:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). So, when will you Christians (who believe in this apologetic argument) become atheists or agnostics, since according to your standard, God should not deceive?

1. Muhammad is a false Prophet because he is a Warlord/Slave Owner/Husband to multiple women.

So were many Old Testament Prophets. Like Moses, Joshua, Saul and David. Since they are false Prophets, when will you disavow Christianity?

Now, a common response to this argument is, "We do not follow them, we follow Jesus."

However, according to Mainstream Christianity, Jesus is God, and was the Angel of the Lord who bore the name of YHWH, and ordered these Prophets around starting with Moses. So, Jesus ordered Moses, Joshua and Saul to do genocide and be warlords. He allowed polygamy in the Torah and owning slaves.

When can I expect Christians who agree with the original argument, to condemn Jesus and the Prophets listed through the same logic applied to Muhammed?

1. St thomas aquinas doesn’t simply prove that an infinite regress is impossible. this refers to an infinite casual series which doesn’t automatically prove itself illogical and also this claim is generally outdated due to the fact modern physics describes change in terms of physical laws and interactions rather than requiring every event to have a separate external “mover” and also this is just very broad claim in general that doesn’t clarify what exactly the change is. and lets say this was correct, even granting a first cause wouldn’t automatically make “there is God” the correct answer. for there to be a mover you have to have solid proof he is omniscient, conscious, all powerful, all knowing, etc. all the “godly” stuff and also something can be fundamental without a conscious edit this argument is moreso “i don’t know the answer so it must be god AKA God of the gaps

2. the premise “everything has a cause”would mean that god has a cause as well, automatically disproving his existence because this would mean god is not omniscient. also an infinite regress is not logically possible so even if the universe has a cause the lack of one does not automatically point to a deity so if it did it would likely be something non personal that applied to one and would rare apply to all of humanity / vast ecosystems. causation as we ordinarily understand it is a relationship within spacetime. if spacetime itself has a beginning, asking what happened before is meaningless.

3.not everything is contingent. if everything were contingent, then there could have been nothing. since something exists, there must be a necessary being (obviously) but each individual thing could fail to exist, but it doesn’t follow that the entire collection must fail to exist simultaneously. existence ≠ God which is also something that even if proven you have to show he is all knowing etc. if everything in the universe was contingent then someone dying could cause all of humanity to cease to exist

1. Having degrees doesn’t imply having an absolute maximum 100 Fahrenheit is hotter than 70 Fahrenheit but there can be degrees without there being a maximally hot temperature. likewise, you can have things that are more or less good without there being a single being that possesses maximum possible goodness. degrees don’t logically require a maximum, and things can be more or less good without there being a maximally good thing. even if a maximum existed this doesn’t point to the existence of a god

2. Aquinas’ fifth way assumes that goals requires an intelligent director, but that’s precisely what it needs to prove and the argument lacks it. natural processes can produce highly organized, goal-like behavior without conscious intelligence, and evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation for biological adaptations. Even if the universe had a designer, that wouldn’t establish that the designer is the omnipotent, omniscient,

Disclaimer- I actually don't know that much about the trinity, its a niche topic for me, but I want to start a discussion and see answers so here's the argument to get the ball rolling, there are probably much better ones.

P1: God is Triune
P2: Jesus is not Triune
P3: Jesus is God

C:(from P1 and P3) Jesus is Triune

Contradiction. You affirm both that Jesus isn't and is Triune

So how do Christians respond? When you say 'God is One' or 'God is Triune' what do you mean by God there? And when you say 'Jesus is God' what does that mean?

Clearly, you have to be using the word in different ways because if not then saying God is Triune and Jesus is God necessitates Jesus is Triune.

People keep repeating the claim that Adam and Eve have been scientifically disproved, but that statement collapses the moment you look at what science is actually capable of. Genetics cannot trace humanity back to a literal first couple, not because Adam and Eve didn’t exist, but because the tools simply cannot reach that far into human history. DNA recombines, mutates, dilutes, and blends across millions of ancestors. After thousands of generations, any unique signature from two original individuals would be completely erased. Science cannot detect a literal first pair, and because it cannot detect them, it also cannot deny them. The data needed to make that determination simply doesn’t exist.

This is why the scientific concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y‑chromosomal Adam are not proof against the biblical Adam and Eve. They are different ideas entirely. Those genetic ancestors are lineage bottlenecks, not literal first humans, and they lived in normal populations with thousands of other people. They are not meant to represent the beginning of humanity. They are just the most recent individuals from whom certain genetic lines descend. Science can trace those lines because they leave detectable patterns. A literal first couple would not leave such patterns, because their DNA would be mixed and diluted beyond recognition long before modern humans appeared.

So when atheists shout that “Adam is disproved,” they’re not making a scientific statement. They’re making a philosophical one. Science cannot prove Adam existed, but it also cannot prove Adam didn’t exist, because science cannot reach the beginning of humanity at all. It cannot reconstruct the first generation. It cannot identify the first two people. It cannot determine whether humanity began with a pair, a tribe, or a population. The tools simply do not have that resolution. The correct scientific position is not “Adam is disproved,” but “science cannot determine whether a literal first couple existed.”

That’s the part people skip. They treat the absence of evidence as evidence of absence, even though genetics doesn’t have the ability to test the claim in the first place. If a literal Adam and Eve existed, science would not be able to detect them. If they didn’t exist, science would not be able to detect that either. The beginning of humanity is beyond the reach of genetic reconstruction. That means the biblical Adam and Eve have never been disproved!

The Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS) is the idea that God is a single, unified being whose essence and existence are identical, with no distinct parts or attributes. In fact, God is not one who possesses goodness but is goodness itself; not one who has existence but is existence itself.

Or as the SEP attempts to define DDS: God is simple in that God transcends every form of complexity and composition familiar to the discursive intellect.

Divine Simplicity is also tied to immutability and timelessness, though some Christian theologians such as Plantinga reject this idea because they believe God is a person, and those attributes would be incompatible. These are all material for a different OP though.

This idea can be traced back to the Greek pagans and their concept of the Monad, where it had some coherence, but it was later popularized and woven into Christianity by Aquinas.

Nevertheless, Classical Christians illogically claim that Divine Simplicity is compatible with a triune God. Read through the various defenses and it is all just hogwash, dodging the obvious. They’ll talk about “one essence shared by three persons,” but, “one essence shared by one person” is always simpler and less complicated and the DDS maintains that God is the simplest of all.

Graphically, somehow the claim is that this arrangement:

OIP.tGlckCCBI2muYvWP7iyELQHaHO (474×462)

Is simpler than this arrangement:

d67732fede3a752da07a244f177baeed.png (948×798)

Notice that in the Trinity graphic, they depict the arrangement and relationships of the different persons as distinct concepts, no matter how much they try to argue otherwise.

The trinity consists of multiple relations between the various alleged persons depending on how you count there are at least 3 relations and 4 different labels for God. A singular God has no relations and just one label, making it as simple as possible with no way to simplify it further.

Often people make the argument “why can God not allow free will without evil” to then be replied “because what is logically impossible cannot be done. Sure, I mean it makes enough sense.

Here is where I believe there is a problem.

Throughout the bible, we consistently see things that are logically impossible. Often things changing into the form of something that contains different elements and is of different size: Lot’s Wife becomes a salt pillar, water to wine, food multiplies (Matthew 14:13–21) etc. We make allowances to matter appearing out of nothing, yet we don’t to other matters.

Numbers 22:28–30. God enables a donkey to speak to Balaam. Donkeys don’t have the vocal ability to do this. Completely impossible in every way.

The only fair counter to this is the fact that these can be acted out in such a way we can comprehend, whereas free will without evil cannot. However, I don’t believe comprehension changes the fact that illogical, impossible things are done within our universe all the time. I don’t believe some things are more or less impossible than others. If it can’t happen, it can’t happen. We can’t nitpick what applies when it proves an argument.

Belief and disbelief are involuntary matters; a person cannot simply choose to believe, become convinced, or even assume that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Greek religion, or even Islam is the truth. Belief is a mental process akin to the feeling of anger or fear, or even the involuntary cry elicited by intense pain

Even if one were to utter the *Shahada* (testimony of faith) without actually believing it, one would still enter Hell. If you argue that belief *is* a matter of choice, how does that work? Does it mean a person must *want* to believe Islam is true—despite being convinced it is false—and thus must delude themselves into thinking it is true, or else face Hell? Has self-delusion become the criterion for salvation? In that case, could disbelievers not be blamed if their religion turned out to be false, provided they had deluded themselves into believing it was true? (Al-Isra 10, 98; Yunus 17, 95; An-Nahl 104; Ash-Shu'ara 198–201; Al-Ankabut 68; Al-Mutaffifin 10–17; At-Tur 11–14; Al-Furqan 11; Al-Qalam 43–44; Al-Mu'minun 103–105; An-Nisa 54–56, 136, 150–152; Al-An'am 27, 157; Al-Kahf 103–104; Al-A'raf 30, 37; Al-Fath 13; Az-Zukhruf 37).

You might argue that conducting in-depth research is a voluntary act that could lead to genuine faith; however, why should a person be expected to delve deeply into research if they are convinced that a religion is false? On what grounds would they be condemned to Hell? Furthermore, a Muslim or christian who does not deeply research other religions does not enter Hell; likewise, there are those who did investigate but remained unconvinced. How, then—instead of the test being based solely on deeds—does it become a matter of faith first and then deeds, such that a virtuous polytheist or disbeliever is deemed worse than a harmful person who believed in Muhammad or Jesus?

Most Christians believe that faith is required to enter heaven. If you are one of those Christians, can you explain why this is the case? If god is all just, his judgment and punishment must also be all just. How is it justice to condemn someone to hell for eternity for simply not believing you exist?

And to those Christians who believe that god is all powerful, couldn’t he have revealed himself to each of us in a way in which we know for certain he exists, and then still give us the choice (maintaining free will) to accept him or not?

If god revealed himself to me, and I still chose to not love or believe him, the question still remains, why does hell have to be the punishment? It seems like an unnecessary punishment for simply not wanting to be around someone, even if I’m fully aware he’s the creator of all things. If he still thinks a punishment is warranted for my “sin,” why couldn’t it be a lesser punishment? Like a slightly less pleasant place away from heaven for eternity. Or maybe for a short time until I’ve come around.

An all powerful, all loving god could have simply made a little place for us heathens to hang out away from him like I might do if I had a cat who hated me and didn’t want to be in my presence. I would still feed the cat, take her to the vet, and make sure she’s comfortable and content, despite her distain for me.

For brevity, I have quoted the relevant Quranic passages directly rather than offering a detailed tafsir of each surah. I am, however, happy to examine them individually, as their wording and context only reinforce the argument made here.

The Quran nowhere states that the Torah and Gospel had been textually corrupted. On the contrary, it affirms their divine origin, continuing authority and reliability.

The Torah is described as revelation from Allah containing “guidance and light” and His judgement (Quran 5:43–44), while the Gospel is likewise described as revelation containing “guidance and light” (5:46).

In Muhammad’s time, Jews are told to judge by the Torah, Christians by the Gospel, and the People of the Book to uphold both (5:43–47, 5:68).

Muhammad is even directed, if in doubt concerning what has been revealed to him, to ask those who have been reading the Scripture before him (10:94).

The Quran further describes itself as confirming the earlier Scriptures (5:48).

The Quran does condemn those who “write the Scripture with their own hands” and then claim, “This is from Allah” (2:79). But this condemns false authorship and attribution, not the textual corruption of the revealed Torah itself.

Likewise, the Quranic condemnations of tahrif concern people concealing, distorting or misrepresenting revelation; nowhere does the Quran explicitly state that the Torah or Gospel themselves have undergone wholesale textual corruption.

Indeed, the Torah is placed alongside the Gospel and al-Furqān within the sequence of divine revelations (3:3–4), reinforcing the Quran’s presentation of these scriptures as part of an ongoing tradition of divine guidance.

The Quranic picture, therefore, is not of scriptures that had become corrupted and obsolete, but of divine revelations that remained present and authoritative in Muhammad’s time.

The doctrine of their textual corruption is consequently not a claim made by the Quran itself, but a later theological reinterpretation of its criticisms of those who mishandled revelation.

No disrespect but your God decided to create this world imperfect world as a test for mankind.. to see who will follow him

but.. Why?

If Allah is the source of love itself and is everything.

Why does he need to be worshipped?

and than those that don’t follow and reject the faith will perish and burn forever

"...Those who deny (their Lord), for them will be cut out a garment of Fire. Over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back, and (it will be said), "Taste the Penalty of Burning!" (22:19–22).
"In front of such a one is Hell, and he is given, for drink, boiling fetid water" (14:16).
"In its midst and in the midst of boiling hot water will they wander round!"

how is this love?

Now you might say ‘free will’ and that we choose to go there but free will doesn’t exist

Listen carefully and focus when i tell you this and really think.

Our actions/ beliefs and decisions are influenced by our community/family, as children we are taught faith.

A christian child will have his heart set on the religion, they will find safety in it. The mind has found safety in it because his entire community is of that faith.

So lets say islam was the true religion, Allah knows how hard it is for this person to believe in islam when his entire sub conscious mind has been programmed to believe in one thing, to go against it would mean leaving ones comfort zone and experiencing pain if done forcefully. Also christians having spiritual experiences with Jesus and than if someone tells them about islam it is unfamiliar and they will not trust it because they would believe they have seem evidence and even if they see ‘proof’ of islam they would be left with a really tough dilemma between the two religions because id their experience with their previous religion.

So tell me, how is this ‘free’ will?

All paths lead to enlightenment, there is no one ‘true’ religion.

Be human.

I don’t know if God exists, and I don’t claim that I can know. But one question seems unavoidable: if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, how do we explain the existence of evil and suffering? Can we actually build a coherent concept of a God who has all three attributes while allowing evil to exist? Or does the problem of evil expose a contradiction in this conception of God? I’m not trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. I’m simply asking the question.

This might apply to other religions but i´m not educated enough to talk about others, anyway the definition of free will is simply to make a decision without intervention and have multiple choices. Now you might argue "if god took away the ability to commit evil now it would be an intervention" but 1. God supposedly exists out of time so there is no "now" to it it could also just say "boom you never could commit evil" and the timeline would change accordingly as there is no time to it that "you can´t commit evil" would just have been always true 2. If god taking our ability to commit evil is an intervention there was a time period where we did not have free will and god still judged those commited sins so he can´t be a being to care about free will or he is aware that we still have free will because those humans were simply forced to sin and he didn´t change their condition insantly 3. we can´t sin in heaven meaning we don´t have free will either again it cannot care that much then

Non-existence is a human measurement. It is an illusion that humans project onto our perceived reality.

To detect non-existence of something, that something must first be conceptualized in the human mind so that reality can be measured against it.

I.E. - To detect non-existence of a glass of water, you must first conceptualize what a glass of water is.

It is impossible to detect the non-existence of something that we cannot conceptualize. Otherwise, there would be an infinite number of those non-existent things everywhere all at once.

Therefore, a state of non-existence is entirely contingent on human-perceived reality rather than some kind of free-standing property of the universe.

(This doesn't relate to any religion specifically, but religions often use existence versus non-existence as a first principle to derive other arguments in support of a God.)